NDAA is a direct attack against legitimate protest and dissent

The primary purpose of the NDAA indefinite detention provisions is to discourage people exercising their FIRST amendment rights to peaceful dissent of government policies.

The provision to repeal Posse Comitatus is similarly designed to discourage peaceful demonstrations against the government and the exercise of 1st Amendment rights. Armed military are now allowed to perform "law enforcement" on the streets of American cities.
Previously only the Police and the National Guard could do this.
An example of the dangers of this legislation are the protests against NATO in Chicago in May.

These are NOT anti terrorism provisions. They are designed to discourage law abiding Americans from dissenting and protesting against their own government.

According to internal documents newly released by the FBI, the agency spearheaded a nationwide law enforcement effort to investigate and monitor the Occupy Wall Street movement. In certain documents, divisions of the FBI refer to the Occupy Wall Street protests as a "criminal activity" or even "domestic terrorism."
The internal papers were obtained by the Partnership for Civil Justice fund via a Freedom of Information Act Request. The fund, a legal nonprofit that focuses on civil rights, says it believes the 112 pages of documents, available for public viewing on its website, are only "the tip of the iceberg."

"This production ... is a window into the nationwide scope of the FBI’s surveillance, monitoring, and reporting on peaceful protestors organizing with the Occupy movement," wrote Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, the fund's executive director, in a press release Saturday.

According to the documents, the FBI coordinated extensively with private companies, including banks, that feared they could be affected by Occupy protests. Occupy, which took root in New York City's Zuccotti Park in September 2011 and spread to cities across the country, targeted corporations and other forces it believed to perpetuate social inequality. The FBI's investigation included the movement's manifestations in New York; Milwaukee; Indianapolis; Anchorage, Alaska; Jacksonville, Fla.; Richmond, Va.; and Memphis, Tenn., among others.

The Senate passed a version of the National Defense Authorization Act that was stripped of a prohibition of the indefinite military detention of US citizens on American soil by an 81-14 vote on Friday, but only after a furious dissent on the chamber's floor by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who called it an "abomination."

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 will now head to the White House, which had earlier pledged to veto the NDAA because it prevents the president from closing the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. It is unclear whether the president will follow through on the threat.

The NDAA is a reauthorization of the large budget bill that sets the budget for a wide range of military activities, but it has proven most controversial for a provision that critics say would allow the military to abuse its detention powers to lock Americans away on the mere suspicion of support for terrorist groups.

In November, a bipartisan group of Senators affixed an amendment to the NDAA that would have explicitly prohibited the military from detaining American citizens on US soil. But earlier this week, a House-Senate conference committee led by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) stripped away that measure.

Afran described “under the guise of adding protection for people in the US,” the amendment offered by Sen. Dianne Feinstein makes the problem worse. If the 2013 NDAA is passed by the House and signed by the president, it will mean that people can be detained in the US indefinitely because now it will no longer be subject to interpretation. The law will expressly say people can be held in military detention indefinitely.

Though it was supposedly intended to fix problems created by an indefinite detention provision in the 2012 NDAA, the main aspect of the law being challenged in the courts will not change. All that will change is a regulation will be added that a US citizen or permanent resident must be given a trial.
“What kind of trial will that be? It will be a military trial because that’s the only thing that’s referenced in the NDAA,” said Afran.

There are no regulations in the 2012 law or 2013 amendment governing how a person would get to the civil courts. As Afran explained, “Everyone has a right to habeas corpus but the NDAA does not provide any rules the military has to create as to how a person can use that right.

Robert Bolt and Sir Thomas More speak out against NDAA

More
And go he should, if he were the Devil himself, until he broke the law!
Roper
So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
More
Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper
Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More
Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down (and you're just the man to do it!), do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?
Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

1. We are in serious trouble in this country. nt

2. you know....

everything is not about Occupy. Regardless of one's views of these government actions we have to get real and understand that they would have been imposed upon us even if Occupy had not formed. You write "similar movements" but so-called similar movements have been around long after Occupy came around and will be here long after Occupy fades away. So let's stop making everything all about those guys. I realize that many of my fellow progressives think Occupy walks on water and have changed the course of this country in ways that "lesser" movements of, say, the 1920s 1960s and 1970s, could never imagine, but sometimes we have to step back and realize that the government isn't always about putting Occupy down. Otherwise what makes us different from the paranoid folks on the right who think the government is trying to take away all of their rights? Well, I suppose I should ask what makes us different OTHER THAN the fact the dudes on the right are much better armed?

3. It is not about Occupy

People will be put off from legitimate protest or dissent whilst the threat of being investigated for "domestic terrorism" and indefinite detention at the whim of the authorities hangs over it.

Occupy is just the best current example of such a protest, I could think of.

The Greeks and the Spaniards have been protesting and rioting against the austerity measures of their own governments. The Greek and the Spanish governments do not have the powers now in the hands of the American government.

If you are not worried now, would you be worried if the GOP got elected in 2016? It would be too late then.

6. Of course everything is not about Occupy. And for you to even suggest that means to me

you missed the point of the OP entirely or purposefully trying to distract from the message. Occupy represents We The People protests. The OP is pointing out how our government, in our name, is disregarding the Constitution under the guise of protecting us. They are openly disregarding Posse Comitatus as well as habeas corpus and during a Democratic president's term. As important as this message is, you choose to ignore the point and level disdain towards Occupy. I am a little puzzled that supposedly "politically liberal people" here in DU, would disparage Occupy.

And by the way, in the area of worrying about the sanctity of the Constitution, maybe we do agree with those on the right. What makes us different isnt the so-called paranoia about losing our rights, but the methods to save those rights.